1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON

CIVIL APPEAL NO.       15611         OF 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.742 of 2015)

OM PRAKASH         … APPELLANT  

VERSUS

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE  AND ANR.                     …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1. Delay condoned.  Leave granted.

2. The  appellant  got  his  truck,  bearing  Registration

No.HR-21-F-0462,  insured  with  Respondent  No.1  herein,  i.e.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., w.e.f. 10.03.2010 to

09.03.2011.  The said vehicle was stolen from Chopanki, Bhiwari,

2

Rajasthan on 23.03.2010 at about 9:00 p.m.  Consequently, an

FIR was lodged, on 24.03.2010, in Police Station Tapkura, District

Alwar,  Rajasthan,  under  Section  379  IPC.   Thereafter,  the

appellant visited the office of the first respondent but the office

was found to be closed.  Then the appellant went to the place of

theft and met the driver and then he went to the concerned police

official. On 29.03.2010, the appellant along with the truck driver,

went with the police officials for their  assistance to search the

vehicle.  The  appellant  reached  his  village  on  30.03.2010.  On

31.10.2010,  the appellant  lodged the insurance claim with the

respondent-company  at  Hissar  and  provided  the  necessary

documents which were demanded by the respondent-company.

3. Pursuant to the said claim, an Investigator was appointed by

the Respondent-company, who, after verification, confirmed the

factum  of  theft.  Consequently,  the  Corporate  Claims  Manager

approved an amount of Rs.7,85,000/- for the said claim of the

appellant.  Thereafter, the appellant  made several  requests  and

demands to the respondent-company, inter alia, seeking speedy

processing  and  disposal  of  his  insurance  claim.  Finally,  the

3

appellant  served  a  legal  notice,  dated  09.08.2011,  to  the

respondent-company.  However,  the  respondent-company

repudiated the insurance claim of the appellant citing breach of

Condition No. 1, i.e. immediate information about the loss/theft

of the vehicle.   

4. Being aggrieved,  the appellant  filed complaint  before the,

District  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Forum,  Hissar  (for  short

‘District  Forum’),  under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection

Act,  1986,  inter  alia,  seeking  a  direction  to  the

respondent-company  for  payment  of  claim  amount  with  an

interest  @  18%  per  annum,  along  with  compensation  of

Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant.  Written statement was filed by

the respondents herein opposing the claim of the appellant. The

District  Forum,  by  order  dated  13.06.2013,  dismissed  the

complaint  of  the  appellant  thereby  holding  that  there  is  no

deficiency of service on the part of respondents.

5. The  appellant  herein  filed  an  appeal  challenging  the  said

order  of  District  Forum,  before  the  State  Consumer  Dispute

Redressal Commission, Haryana (for short ‘State Commission’) at

4

Panchkula. The State Commission by an order dated 23.10.2013

dismissed  the  said  appeal.  This  order  was  challenged  by  the

appellant  by  way  of  Revision  Petition  before  the  National

Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Commission  (for  short  ‘National

Commission’). This Revision Petition has been dismissed by the

National  Commission  by  an  order  dated  12.02.2014.  The

appellant has questioned the legality and correctness of the said

order in this appeal.

6. Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  contended  that  the

appellant,  immediately  after  getting  the  information  about  the

theft of the vehicle, went to the place of theft and met the police

officials along with the truck driver. Consequently, he got busy

with  the  police  while  visiting  many cities  in  Rajasthan for  the

search  of  the  said  vehicle  and  returned  to  his  village  on

30.03.2010 and lodged the insurance claim on 31.03.2010 before

the  Respondent-company.  The  appellant  has  assigned  cogent

reasons for  the delay of  8 days in lodging the complaint.  The

National  Commission  has  dismissed  the  petition  filed  by  the

appellant without taking into consideration the reasons assigned

5

for the delay.  It is argued that the Investigator appointed by the

Respondent  has  verified  the  factum  of  theft  and  that  the

Corporate Claims Manager approved the report of  Investigator,

thereby  recommending  the  payment  of  Rs.7,85,000/-  towards

claim.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents  submits  that  as  per  the  Condition  No.  1  of  the

Insurance  Policy, the  information  of  theft  ought  to  have been

given  to  the  respondent-company  immediately  upon  the

occurrence of theft. The claim was filed after a delay 8 days from

the occurrence of theft.  In the said circumstance, the National

Commission was justified in rejecting the revision petition.

8. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned

counsel  made at the Bar and perused the materials  placed on

record.

9. The appellant, owner of the truck in question, is the resident

of  Muzadnagar  village,  Tehsil  Hansi,  District  Hissar,  State  of

Haryana. The theft of the vehicle had taken place on 23.03.2010

at  Chopanki,  Bhiwari,  Rajasthan.  The  FIR  was  lodged  in  P.S.

6

Tapukra, District Alwar on 24.03.2010 and the claim petition was

filed  on  31.03.2010.  Dinesh,  the  truck-driver,  had  filed  an

affidavit before the District Forum stating that the owner of the

truck had reached the place of occurrence of theft and met him

and also the concerned police official.  The Police had asked him

and the owner to stay with them in order to help them for tracing

out  the  truck.   The  police  had  also  asked  them  to  collect

necessary documents in relation to the said truck.   They were,

consequently, busy  with  the  Rajasthan  Police  in  searching  the

vehicle.   They visited many places in Rajasthan.   The police had

compelled the appellant to accompany them while searching the

truck.  It  is  only  on  29.03.2010,  the  appellant  went  back  and

reached his village on 30.03.2010.  The appellant had also filed a

similar  affidavit  before  the  State  Commission  explaining  the

reasons for the delay in informing theft of the vehicle.  

10. Condition  No.1  of  the  Insurance  Policy  states  that  notice

shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the

occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the event of any

7

claim and thereafter the insured has to give all such information

and assistance as the company may require.   

11. It is common knowledge that a person who lost his vehicle

may  not  straightaway  go  to  the  Insurance  Company  to  claim

compensation.  At first, he will make efforts to trace the vehicle.

It is true that the owner has to intimate the insurer immediately

after the theft of the vehicle.   However, this condition should not

bar settlement of genuine claims particularly when the delay in

intimation  or  submission  of  documents  is  due  to  unavoidable

circumstances.  The decision of the insurer to reject the claim has

to be based on valid grounds.  Rejection of the claims on purely

technical grounds in a mechanical manner will  result in loss of

confidence  of  policy-holders  in  the  insurance  industry.  If  the

reason  for  delay  in  making  a  claim is  satisfactorily  explained,

such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of delay. It is also

necessary to state here that it would not be fair and reasonable

to  reject  genuine  claims  which  had  already  been  verified  and

found to be correct by the Investigator. The condition regarding

the delay shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims

8

which have been otherwise proved to be genuine.  It needs no

emphasis  that  the  Consumer  Protection  Act  aims  at  providing

better protection of the interest of consumers. It is a beneficial

legislation that deserves liberal construction.  This laudable object

should not be forgotten while considering the claims made under

the Act.

12. In the instant case, the appellant has given cogent reasons

for the delay of 8 days in informing the respondent about the

incident. The Investigator had verified the theft to be genuine and

the payment of Rs.7,85,000/- towards the claim was approved by

the Corporate Claims Manager, which, in our opinion, is just and

proper. The  National  Commission,  therefore,  is  not  justified  in

rejecting  the  claim  of  the  appellant  without  considering  the

explanation  for  the  delay.  We  are  also  of  the  view  that  the

claimant  is  entitled  for  a  sum  of  Rs.50,000/-  towards

compensation.

13. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the orders of the National

Commission,  State Commission and the District  Forum are set

aside and the claim petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The

9

respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,35,000/-

to the appellant with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of

filing  of  the  the  claim  petition  till  the  date  of  payment.  The

payment, as above, shall  be made within a period of 8 weeks

from today.

14. There will be no order as to costs.    

……………………………J. (R.K. AGRAWAL)

……………………………J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER)

New Delhi; October 4, 2017.